Salon: Gabriel Arana: Bill Maher's Islam Silence: Why Canceling Bill Maher's Berkley Speech is a Mistake

Source:FreeState MD

I'm going to give you a prefect example of what right-wingers are talking about when they say what conservative writer Jonah Goldberg titled in his book back in I believe 2008, what he called Liberal Fascism. Even though the title Liberal Fascism is a bogus title. I mean you can't be both a Liberal and a fascist, you know it is one or the other. Just like you can't be both a Socialist and a corporatist. You can't be anti-corporate, which is what Socialists are and be a pro-corporate, which is what corporatists are.

Berkley University, which is what I call California University, has or a group of their left-wing ill-liberal students have decided that they not only do not agree with comedian, left-wing comedian, by the way Bill Maher's views on Islam, but that they do not want him speaking at their university. So the school has canceled the Maher speech there. Now here's a couple of reasons why that is a big mistake. One is practical because Berkley is a public university and part of the California State Government. So Maher's free speech rights to me at least as a non-lawyer are being violated.

But the other issue gets to a philosophical one. Banning someone or canceling on someone because you not only disagree with your views, but you are offended by them. "Don't allow that guy to speak because we disagree with him and he would be saying things that we don't want our people to hear". Fascism 101 and why right-wingers call some on the Left 'liberal fascists'. Even though again there's nothing liberal about fascism, because the main value of liberalism is free speech and the right for one to speak freely regardless of what others may think about what they have to say.

I mean you are so offended or believe what someone is saying is no wrong and just utter garbage (or something else), let the person speak and then show people how wrong they are. That is what liberal democracy and free speech are about. The right to be heard and to be able to make your case. Knowing that you are not the only person in that country with that right. And that may include people you make disagree with. Which is something that people who are on the far-left in America, people who I call leftist fascists who are addicted political correctness, do not understand.

George Carlin: Stupid Bullshit

Source:HBO George Carlin Special.

Source:FreeState MD

Imagine a world without stupidity, hey that’s the title of this piece, well sort of, sometimes it helps to pay attention to what you are writing, but sometimes it can also cost you. Because you might think th

at, “damn I’m a bad writer!” And if you are wondering about the language? Well the title of this piece should’ve been a very big clue. Like the size of a dinosaur actually and if that’s still not big enough for you, then you are part of the stupid bullshit problem in America that’s holding us down.

But seriously, imagine a world without stupid bullshit and as you are imagining that, imagine a world without Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann, Michael Moore, Melissa Harris-Perry, to name some examples. You think a world without stupid people, well that could be big problem. Because who would we have to make fun of anymore. I thought of that and decided its a chance worth risking because of all the stupidity that would be moved to Siberia or some place in hell like that. As the smart people are now in charge.

Imagine a world where we had politicians and other public officials who actually knew what the hell they were doing. We wouldn’t go to war over bogus evidence because we would have a President and a National Security Council who actually knew how to read intelligence reports. We wouldn’t have a fiscal cliff because we would have a President and a Congress who would be smart enough not to put the country through that. We wouldn’t have a sequester because we wouldn’t have a President and a Congress who were smart enough not to cut things across the board. Meaning cutting parts of government that we need as much as waste in government.

You might think a world without stupid people would be a problem. Because we would have a Congress that actually knew what the hell they were doing and start being very productive as passing a lot of legislation. And as a Liberal I generally believe more laws that are passed, the less freedom that we would have. But think about it this way, no more stupid people in Congress, House or Senate. And replaced by people who actually know how to write good legislation.

A world without stupid people would be a world with a no stupid zone. ( To sort of borrow Bill O’Reilly’s no spin zone ) and Billy wouldn’t be allowed in the no stupid zone because it would be a world without stupidity and things like intolerance, racism, homophobia and other types of bigotry would be eliminated. Because all the stupid people would be rounded up because they wouldn’t have the same constitutional rights as smart people. And the stupid people would be sent to Siberia or some place and the smart people would rule the world.
Source:George Carlin

The Daily Beast: Peter Beinart: ‘Brown University’s Campus Leftists vs. Free Speech’

Source:The Daily Beast- NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly.

Source:FreeState MD 

“Tell that to Ray Kelly. Yesterday the New York City police chief was prevented from speaking on Paxson’s campus by students angered by the NYPD’s racial profiling. Those students have good reason to be angry. Unfortunately, they’re the latest in a long line of campus activists who believe their anger trumps other people’s free speech.

Netanyahu from speaking at Montreal’s Concordia University. In 2009, activists at the University of North Carolina shut down a planned speech by anti-immigration congressman Tom Tancredo.

There’s something deeper going on here. On the surface, campuses like Brown’s seem hegemonically liberal. But in my experience, that apparent consensus conceals a crucial gulf between students and faculty who hold left of center opinions but accept basic norms of fair play and students who consider freedom of speech a scam employed by the powers that be to perpetuate their racism/sexism/classism/imperialism/homophobia. Convinced that freedom of speech is an illusion denied them outside the university gates, they take revenge in the one arena where the balance of forces tilt their way. And they thus inject into their own campuses the totalitarian spirit they believe characterizes society at large. It’s no surprise that such activists targeted Ray Kelly, and that for years they tried to bar military recruiters. What better way to deny your government’s basic legitimacy than to turn the people it deputizes to protect you into pariahs.”

From The Daily Beast 

“A Disgraceful Decision by NPR” O’Reilly

Fired National Public Radio analyst breaks down events following Muslim comments on ‘The O’Reilly Factor'”

Source:State of The Union- Juan Williams on The O'Reilly Factor in 2010, talking about being fired by taxpayer funded National Public Radio.

From State of The Union 

I hate the term “campus liberals” to refer to people are supposed to be Liberals even though they aren’t and sound more like Fidel Castro or Hugo Chavez supporting and admiring Neo-Communists, than they do Liberals. I’ll get to what I mean by that later, because you simply can’t be a Liberal if you do not believe in free speech period. It would like someone whose a Conservative who doesn’t believe in private enterprise or capitalism. Or a Libertarian whose against the right to privacy and in favor of the War on Drugs. There’s a big reason the first amendment is the first amendment because it is the most important amendment we have and the most important freedom that we as people have.

Take free speech away and you might as well take away democracy and the freedom to assemble and the right to privacy, because one doesn’t work without the other with people being able to organize and speak their minds even if it offends people on the fascist Left or fascist Right. People who believe they are God (even if they are Atheists) and have all the answers and are right about everything to the point they believe they shouldn’t have any opposition.

So if you believe in censorship as a policy and that free speech only applies to people who you agree with, then you are not a Liberal. Just like someone whose against capitalism and wants the economy to be nationalized is not a Conservative. Or someone whose against the right to privacy and against freedom of choice is not a Libertarian.

My main response to Peter Beinart is that people who oppose right-wingers that they dislike right to free speech in America, aren’t Liberals because free speech is as liberal a value that exists anywhere in the world. But instead these young folks for the most part are left-wing fascists, or acting left-wing fascists. It’s Communists or Neo-Communists who are on the Far-Left perhaps everywhere in the world outside of Cuba and North Korea, who oppose free speech. Not Liberals because Liberals believe in liberal democracy. And free speech is as liberal as any value that you have in a liberal democracy.

The Young Turks: John Iadarola: 'Ted Cruz "Filibuster" On Obamacare'

Source:The Young Turks- U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (Republican, Texas) speaking at length (to quote John Ivarola) about ObamaCare.

Source:FreeState MD 

"Ted Cruz finally released his grip on the Senate floor after more than 21 hours of speaking about the need to defund Obamacare.

The Texas Republican seized control of the Senate floor on Tuesday about 2:42 p.m. vowing to "speak in support of defunding Obamacare until I am no longer able to stand." Cruz could have spoken all the way up to a 1 p.m. procedural vote on moving spending bill forward, but he relented at noon.".* John Iadarola (TYT University, The Common Room) breaks it down on The Young Turks." 

From The Young Turks

Where Senator Ted Cruz's speech about ObamaCare was a filibuster, or a crazy man with nothing better to do, then to go down to the U.S. Senate floor and prevent the presiding officer of the Senate from going home to get some much needed sleep, (like a selfish person, or something) Senator Cruz proved one point. He can speak for hours and hours about nothing, add nothing to an already controversial debate about ObamaCare. And apparently do this leaving plenty of coffee and candy bars for everyone else in Washington.

Marie Marr: Up With Steve Kornacki- 'An Opening For Elizabeth Warren in 2016?'

Source:Marie Marr- Steve Kornacki and company, talking about U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (Democrat, Massachusetts) on MSNBC.

Source:FreeState MD 

"From Video.MSNBC.MSN.com. UP With Steve Kornacki. Oct 5, 2013. The New York Times' Jonathan Martin, The Washington Post's Jackie Kucinich and Buzzfeed's McKay Coppins join Steve Kornacki to discuss if Elizabeth Warren's current "moment" will translate into a 2016 presidential run." 

From Marie Marr

I buy that there is anger I guess or this feeling that we need something different (in the lets call it the Far-Left in the Democratic Party) so-called Progressive-Democrats ( to be nice, during the holiday season ) like Senator Elisabeth Warren who is not as Far-Left as much as her followers may want her to be. 

Senator Warren is a mainstream Progressive Democrat similar to Ted Kennedy or Sherrod Brown or Tom Harkin. She’s from the FDR/LBJ wing of the Democratic Party. Not the Michael Moore or MSNBC wing, which is very different.

Elizabeth Warren is not a McGovernite government needs to be big enough to manage people’s lives for them, because people are too stupid to do that for themselves. She’s not Dennis Kucinich or Ralph Nader but a center-left Progressive to the Left of me and I’m a Liberal, who wants government to do basic things: like regulating big business especially Wall Street, but not ending business and turning them into government agencies. And when Occupy Wall Street and others on the Far-Left figure this out, by sobering up, she’ll get less of their support.

Senator Warren is not an extremist and if that is what Social Democrats in the Democratic Party want a FDR or Ted Kennedy so-called Progressive, someone who is also pretty mainstream, then great someone like an Elisabeth Warren would go far and give someone like a Hillary Clinton who at best is a Progressive, but not a far-lefty and that may only be when she feel she needs to be. 

Hillary is like a political calculator: she calculates where she believes she needs to be at the time to be politically successful. Which is her main weakness and I believe something she’s going to have to get past, if she really wants to be President of the Untied States.

If Elizabeth Warren were to run as that Progressive that I’m talking about and Hillary runs as the human political calculator, my support would go to the current Senator. Because at least I would know where she is on the issues and be with her on enough things to say voting for her was a good thing. 

But if Liz were to run as a McGovernite “big central government always knows best for the people and people are too stupid to manage their own affairs” she’ll make Dennis Kucinich look like Ronald Reagan when it comes to presidential politics as far as political support. And bomb as badly as Rihanna at a Southern Baptist Convention.

The Young Turks: ‘Martin Luther King Was a Republican?’

Source:The Young Turks- Dr. Martin L. King was a Republican. Also in the news: Reverend's Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, have both come out in favor of same-sex-marriage. And have announced they've been in love with each other for years. LOL

Source:FreeState MD

“Many people talk about the “fact” that King was a Republican. It is asserted incessantly by conservatives on Twitter and elsewhere on the internet, especially in the lead up to today’s 50th anniversary of the March on Washington. The claim is most prominently advanced by King’s niece, Republican activist Alveda King. Over the years, conservative groups have purchased billboards making the claim. Second, Martin Luther King Jr. was not a Republican. Or a Democrat. King was not a partisan and never endorsed any political candidate…”.* Cenk Uygur, Ana Kasparian, John Iadarola (host of TYT University and Common Room), and Dave Rubin (host of The Rubin Report) break it down on The Young Turks."

From The Young Turks

Pre-1964 or so I could see why Martin King was a Republican. Lets face it, the GOP was home to an overwhelming amount of African-Americans. Because of the Civil War, the freeing of the African slaves, Abraham Lincoln, etc. And then go up to the 1950s and 60s, which party is the civil rights party? The Republican Party and their Northern Progressives, especially in Congress. Who without the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the 1965 Voting Rights Act and the 1968 Fair Housing Law doesn’t pass. Those laws would’ve not of passed in the House and Senate without Northern and Midwestern Progressive and Conservative Republicans. Like Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen.

Ideologically except for civil rights, its hard to imagine how MLK would’ve fit into the Republican Party. They did have a progressive faction, but that was about civil rights, infrastructure, environmental protection and to a certain extent the safety net for people who truly needed it. But MLK was much more social democratic in nature, especially economically and when it came to civil rights and racial equality in general. And he was a dove and non-interventionist when it came to foreign policy and national security. And consistently spoke out against the size of the American defense budget and our involvement oversees. But without putting down American serviceman and women. Unlike the New Left of the late 1960s.

I can’t imagine Dr. King as a Republican or Democrat back then and perhaps not today. Today I could see him putting down Democrats as giving up on the poor and less-fortunate over things like Welfare to Work. And not doing enough to address the income gap and eliminate what he and others see as the Military Industrial Complex and Prison Industrial Complex. If Dr. King were a Democrat today, he would’ve been a member of the Progressive Caucus and perhaps one of the leaders of Occupy Wall Street, or creating his own social democratic movement. Or perhaps not a Democrat at all and a member of the Green Party or Democratic Socialists USA. He was very Left on economic policy and when it came to national security as well, for a lot of center-left Democrats.

Russia Today: The Resident- Lori Harfenist: 'American Monarchy, It's Time'

Source: RT- Russia Today is at least partially funded by Vladimir Putin's Russian Federation Government.

Source:FreeState MD

"America's federal republic is failing its citizens, who more and more do not feel properly represented in their government. And there is no doubt that America is celebrity-obsessed. It might be time to rethink American government structure to establish an absolute monarchy. The Resident (aka Lori Harfenist) discusses."

From RT America

First of all, I’m not sure this commentator was being completely serious or not. And just giving a satiric editorial about the American political system and perhaps I just didn’t find it very funny. So what I’m going to do is write what I think about what she said as if she was completely serious and not out to lunch and never came back, perhaps kidnapped or whatever and having a good excuse for not reporting back to work. Which is how off the wall of a proposal this sounds like to me. For the sake of this post, the problem with America is not the political system and certainly not the United States Constitution.

The problem with American politics are people who are in it and operate it including the voters. When you combine bad, dumb voters, especially when they vote often and if you are familiar with America, you know that dumb voters tend to vote the most, but with voters like this, you tend to get bad politicians in the crooked sense. But great politicians in the sense they know how to get reelected and who they need to vote for them to get reelected. So I can’t feel sorry for people who vote for bad people and then complain about the public officials they voted for.

Call me crazy and I’m sure you will any way, but I don’t feel sorry for voters like that. Because as George Carlin said over and over we get what we vote for. So we have bad people who are bought off in charge of our political system. But who wouldn’t be there had it not of been for the dumb people who voted for them in the first place.

So the first problem with American politics is the people in power. But again those people who are in power were voted into office. So the solution is to stop voting for the same people. And vote for people who care about the country and their constituents at least a lot more than the special interests who bankrolled their campaigns. So what we need in America is an educated voting public. Not a dictatorship.

Sullen Toys: Martin Luther King- 'I Have A Dream Speech, August 28, 1963'

Source:Sullen Toys- Dr. Martin L. King, 1963 I Have a Dream speech.

Source:FreeState MD 

"I Have A Dream Speech August 28, 1963 Martin Luther King" 

From Sullen Toys

Dr. King’s I Have a Dream Speech, is the crown jewel of the American civil rights movement because it laid out exactly what the vision of the movement is, that it is about jobs, justice and equal rights. Which is why you hear Dr. King quoting the United States Constitution that guarantees certain basic human rights to all Americans, not just European-Americans, or European-American men, but the entire country. All of us all Americans share these basic constitutional rights. Which was exactly what the American civil rights movement was about a fight for freedom.

The civil rights movement is not too different what the American Revolution was about a fight for freedom as well and to have these constitutional rights. A big difference being that the Dr. King wing of the movement was non-violent from its start, to its core and to its end. And the fact that the Europeans who won the American Revolutionary War didn’t intend to include other Americans in the U.S. Constitution, the fact is they did when they said all men have the basic human rights. And Dr. King and his movement did was to say they are here to collect those rights that the United States Government owes them under the U.S. Constitution.

I mean just look at the words of the I Have a Dream speech. Dr. King saying that he has a dream that one day his children would not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. Here’s someone whose economic politics at least would make him a Democratic Socialist today and yet he’s calling for a color-blind and even race-blind society. Which would actually put him to the Right of a lot of people who claim to be his supporters today, who are very race conscience and even have racial if not racist views towards Caucasians, even Jews and especially Southern Anglo-Saxons, people of British background.

The Young Turks: Cenk Uygur- Bill O’Reilly: 'The Truth About Martin Luther King Jr.'

Source:The Young Turks- Bill giving The O'Reilly Finger to Dr. Martin L. King.

Source:FreeState MD 

"Bill O'Reilly used the 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr's I Have A Dream speech to attack African Americans and claim that MLK was pro-right wing. The Young Turks host Cenk Uygur breaks it down." 

From The Young Turks

So I guess you couldn't have your own cable talk show, if you weren't also a psychic and mindreader. Because apparently Bill O'Reilly has some super ability to go into dead people's minds and read what they would think 45 years after their death. Which is apparently that Bill O'Reilly was doing about Dr. Martin Luther King. A man by the way, that Mr. O'Reilly never even met, let was able to ever talk too. 

I don’t know where Bill O’Reilly gets the 75% of African-American babies being born out-of-wedlock. But he does have a point about the state of the current African-American community. And would have problems with it and disagreements with the community. And would want to see more done so this community doesn’t have more poverty, less education, fewer fathers in the households, more crime and murders and people in prison than the rest of the country as a whole.

But I guess it wouldn’t be The O’Reilly Finger, I mean Factor, if Billy wasn’t just stating the obvious and emphasizing the negative. Fifty-years after the I Have a Dream speech, fewer African-Americans now live in poverty, more go to school and finish school, graduate from college, live in the middle class. African-Americans. Still not doing as well as Caucasians, as well as Asians, regardless of ethnicity, and perhaps Latinos, again regardless of race or ethnicity. And that is still the challenge for this community to come to par with the rest of the country and not have negative statistics that are twice the average of the entire country.

To accomplish this, more African-Americans and Americans in general in poverty, need to go to good schools, finish school, further their education, not have kids until they’re personally and financially ready to take care of them and then actually raise their kids. And this get to men in the community that are man enough to create babies and life, but not man enough to raise their own kids. And leave that to the mother who isn’t doing very well herself, yet ready to raise kids all by herself.

Research Channel: 'Martin Luther King Jr. Lecture in Social Justice'

Source:Research Channel- Reverend Jesse Jackson appearing at this lecture.

Source:FreeState MD 

"An annual event during University of Pennsylvania's celebration of the life and legacy of Dr. King; each year, it highlights a scholar of African descent who is committed to the field of social justice. The 2004 guest was the Rev. Jesse Jackson, in conversation with the Rev. Dr. Michael Eric Dyson, moderated by Dr. Tukufu Zuberi." 

From the Research Channel

Martin L. King was a true Social Democrat. Not a Marxist, or a Communist, but someone who believed in using government to redistribute wealth from the wealthy and use that money through government to provide for low-income people who lacked the basic tools to live well in America. Which in many ways is what democratic socialism is about, to see to it that a few people don’t do so well, while so many others live without the basic necessities.

Had Dr. King lived past 1968 and wasn’t assassinated at thirty-nine years old in 1968, the next stage of his movement would have been about poverty in America economic and social justice. And perhaps would have been the modern Bernie Sanders, or Henry Wallace of his generation. And perhaps we would have seen the Green Party emerged in the 1970s as a true Social Democratic Party that could compete with Democrats and Republicans.

Economically speaking, I see Senator Bernie Sanders as the Martin King of his generation. Depending on how you define generations and would Senator Sanders and Dr. King, be in the same generation, or not. But two men who are essentially anti-wealth. That being wealthy and economically independents are bad things in their view, when others go without. So in their view, you need a big government to take from the well-off, to give to the less-fortunate, so no one has to live in poverty.

FOX News: John Fugelsang Talking Politics (2011)

Source:FOX News- talking about Newt Gingrich For President (2012)

Source:FreeState MD 

"Comedian, actor, radio and television personality John Fugelsang appears on Fox News' "Fox & Friends" to discuss politics and The Stephanie Miller Sexy Liberal Comedy Tour." 

From Shanem FO

This is just about John Fugelang talking about American politics in 2011 and who was up and down that year. They talked about Newt Gingrich for President, who ran for President in 2011/12. And you get to hear what John Fugelsang and the rest of the panel thinks about what was going on in American politics late that year.

The Young Turks: Cenk Uygur- ‘Harry Reid Full Of Cat Shit On Filibuster Nuclear Option’

Source:The Young Turks- U.S. Senate Leaders Mitch McConnell (Republican, Kentucky) and Harry Reid (Democrat, Nevada) Seriously, is this the best we can do to lead the U.S. Senate? 

Source:FreeState MD 

“… Reid said he is prepared to use the “nuclear option” should Republicans not agree to approve the seven nominees. Current rules require 67 votes to change Senate rules, but the Nevada senator’s move would allow for the change in Senate filibuster procedure with a simple majority of 51 votes.

‘I’m going to go to the floor on Tuesday and do what I need to do so this doesn’t happen anymore,’ Reid said about the potential blocking of nominees.”*

Cenk Uygur breaks it down.” 

From The Young Turks 

I was watching a little of C-SPAN today before I went bike riding and went out and did what I needed to do. Why, because I’m a political junky who is interested in other things than the George Zimmerman case. And actually interested in important news that affects the country and that makes me un-American, then so be it.

C-SPAN was showing a debate in the U.S. Senate and for all of you Zimmerman trial junkies who are perhaps reading this blog by accident, thinking this was also about George Zimmerman, one turn off your TV. 

But C-SPAN is the network that covers the United States Congress and other current affairs events that are going on the country. And C-SPAN was showing an old Senate debate from 2005 when the then Senate Republican majority and the last one that they’ve had wanted to eliminate the filibuster on executive appointments. I was watching this old Senate debate and couldn’t, but help notice the hypocrisy on both sides.

If I had to guess there was more hypocrisy coming from the Republican side led by then Senate Assistant Leader Mitch McConnell. Who is now of course the Minority Leader a job he’s had since 2007 when Democrats took control of Congress. And if I had to bet there’s probably more hypocrisy coming from Senate Republicans than Democrats. But if this were some crazy contest it would be a nail biter. I mean it would be like trying to decide which is redder: or the red apple or tomato? How would you and besides why would you care?

Neither side has been very responsible here. But guess what, this is Congress and why would the Senate be responsible anyway, they don’t work for a living. Neither does the House of Representatives in too many cases as well. But the same people led by Mitch McConnell today Senator Orin Hatch and Senator Jeff Sessions all members of the Judiciary Committee and then Senate Leader Bill Frist who first proposed the so-called nuclear-option, are now saying this is a power grab by Senate Democrats and they’re the ones being unfair.

“Sure, if we do this, we’re acting in the best interest of our party, I mean country. But when the other side does it, it is a complete abuse of power and unconstitutional”. I mean seriously anyone who is actually familiar with Congress, still wondering why they have a ten-percent approval rating? And who are these ten-percent anyway? Any of them not living in mental hospitals and not in comas. Perhaps whoever does these polls, counts dead people. You know, the way they vote in Illinois, Louisiana and New Jersey.

Where do Congress people come up with these labels? “We’re saying the Democratic obstructionism is out of control. And we need to do away with the filibuster? Are now saying that: “The filibuster is a check on absolute power in America”. On the Democratic side back in 2005 led by then Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid who is now of course the Leader to go along with Senator Chuck Schumer who is also on the Judiciary Committee to go along with Senator Jack Reid, Senator Evan Bayh and others, those Democrats were saying eliminating the Senate filibuster would be a power grab.

“We’re saying that eliminating the filibuster would be an abuse of power and go against two-hundred years of Senate tradition and so-forth”. Wait, aren’t these Democrats supposed to be the Liberals, what do they care about tradition?

But now Senate Democrats are saying that: “The filibuster now represents ruling by minority. With one minority party in this case the Senate Republican Conference led by Mitch McConnell now running and having veto say on how the executive and judicial branches can now operate. When instead they are just supposed to be one voice and a minority voice at that”.

The point being that there’s enough hypocrisy and hypocritical people (to be nice) bullshit artists (to be accurate) here to form their own national club of bullshit artists. “We’re a club that creates and promotes bullshit across the country”. Apparently the agriculture sector is really struggling and then they need to create this national club, because they aren’t producing enough bullshit. Apparently Winnie the Bull is sick or something.

This club wouldn’t need any other members because all the available spaces would be filled by the United States Senate and an example of why ninety-percent of Americans dislike Congress. Because we have a lot of Senators like this. This whole Senate filibuster debate is all about “do what I say not what I do. Forget about my past record because this is what is important now and what I believe in”. They sound like your parents, right.

Which of course is the easiest near advantage that they can use against the other side and hit them as hard as they can with it until they lose power. Apparently unaware that will be used against them once they are out of power. Rather than doing what is best for the Senate and respecting the true role of the Senate as the upper chamber in Congress and its role in the Federal Government.

Russia Today: Barack Obama- 'A Socialist in Disguise?'

Source:Russia Today- President Vladimir Putin's Russia Today, talking about whether President Barack Obama is actually a Socialist. Newsflash: Vlad and Barry are not friends.

Source:FreeState MD 

"Obama: Socialist in disguise?" 

From Russia Today 

"RT (formerly Russia Today or Rossiya Segodnya (Russian: Россия Сегодня))[9] is a Russian state-controlled[1] international television network funded by the Russian government.[16][17] It operates pay television or free-to-air channels directed to audiences outside of Russia, as well as providing Internet content in Russian, English, Spanish, French, German and Arabic.

RT is a brand of TV-Novosti, an autonomous non-profit organization founded by the Russian state-owned news agency RIA Novosti in April 2005.[8][18] During the economic crisis in December 2008, the Russian government, headed by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, included ANO "TV-Novosti" on its list of core organizations of strategic importance to Russia.[19][20][21] RT operates as a multilingual service with channels in five languages: the original English-language channel was launched in 2005, the Arabic-language channel in 2007, Spanish in 2009, German in 2014 and French in 2017. RT America (2010–2022),[22][23] RT UK (2014–2022) and other regional channels also produce local content. RT is the parent company of the Ruptly video agency,[5] which owns the Redfish video channel and the Maffick digital media company.[6][7]

RT has regularly been described as a major propaganda outlet for the Russian government and its foreign policy.[2] Academics, fact-checkers, and news reporters (including some current and former RT reporters) have identified RT as a purveyor of disinformation[58] and conspiracy theories.[65] UK media regulator Ofcom has repeatedly found RT to have breached its rules on impartiality, including multiple instances in which RT broadcast "materially misleading" content.[72]

In 2012, RT's editor-in-chief Margarita Simonyan compared the channel to the Russian Ministry of Defence.[73] Referring to the Russo-Georgian War, she stated that it was "waging an information war, and with the entire Western world".[17][74] In September 2017, RT America was ordered to register as a foreign agent with the United States Department of Justice under the Foreign Agents Registration Act.[75]

RT was banned in Ukraine in 2014 after Russia's annexation of Crimea;[76] Latvia and Lithuania implemented similar bans in 2020.[77][78] Germany banned RT DE in February 2022.[79] After the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, Poland and then the entire European Union announced they were formally banning RT as well, while independent service providers in over 10 countries suspended broadcasts of RT.[80][81] Social media websites followed by blocking external links to RT's website and restricting access to RT's content.[82][83] Microsoft removed RT from their app store and de-ranked their search results on Bing,[84][85] while Apple removed the RT app from all countries except for Russia." 

From Wikipedia

I agree Barack Obama may be the worst Socialist ever for the simple reason he’s not a Socialist. And the same thing could be said about George W. Bush being the worst Conservative ever because he wasn’t very conservative, if you look at his record when it came to fiscal policy, especially spending and civil liberties. 

To be a Socialist you, you must be a Socialist. I know that sounds crazy, but to be tall, you actually have to be tall. A man can’t just say one day: "Now dammit (or something stronger) I’m tired of being 5’7 and short. So today I declare myself as 6’1 and tall." Why, because that man will still be 5’7. Calling yourself something doesn’t make you that. A patrol officer can’t just make themselves a sergeant and call themselves that. They have to be promoted to sergeant first.

Calling yourself something or calling someone else something, doesn’t make them what you’re calling them or yourself that, if you or they aren’t actually that. If I’ve lost you on that, I’m not surprised, I’m feeling dizzy from just writing that. 

To be a Socialist, you must have a socialist record and socialist policies and ideas. Which is just not there in Barack Obama’s case. Unless you want to play guilt by association (In other words: Joe McCarthy) Meaning people Barry has been associated with in the past, Bill Ayers comes to mind, the guy hosting this show, Al Sharpton, now here’s someone you could make a serious case about being a Socialist.

But the charges against President Obama are just Tea Party propaganda trying to make a man they hate, seen as Un-American as not one of them and must be defeated and stopped at all costs. So they use one of the most unpopular words in the American-English dictionary which is socialist and socialism and so-forth, trying to make Barack Obama seem as worst then he is to scare people. Thats the modern GOP divide and conquer when you don’t have a popular message of your own.

Mitch: Chicago 1968: The Democratic Convention

Source:Mitch- I guess this couple was at the 1968 Democratic National Convention. Hopefully they survived the experience.

Source:FreeState MD 

"1968 Democratic Convention special." 

From Mitch

1968 is when the Democratic Party changed and no longer became a Northeastern progressive party with a Southern coalition, made up of people who basically make up the Religious-Right and Neo-Confederate wing of the Republican Party today. By 1968, the Democratic Party was moving away from the South and becoming the party of the Northeast, Midwest and West Coast, as well as the Mid Atlantic.

With the emergence of what I call the Green Party wing of the Democratic Party, that is represented by the so-called Progressive Caucus in Congress that you see today in the Green Party, but also in Occupy Wall Street, the Democratic Party now had a major, left-wing in it. And this is how the Democratic Party lost the White House in 1968 because Classical Liberals on their Right and Progressives on the Center-Left in the party were now divided between the New-Left in the party made up of Socialists-Anarchists, as well as Communists. The group called Students For a Democratic Society then was what Occupy Wall Street is of today.

The Democratic Party lost in 1968 because they were divided by their two wings on the Left: The FDR/LBJ Progressive coalition, with this new coalition that’s called the New-Left, people who are against war (at all costs) but are in favor of using violence to get their message across. Who are against American capitalism and corporate America, but in favor of the New Deal and Great Society, but would expand into what’s known in Europe as the welfare state. What the Green Party today calls the Green New Deal.

The Green Deal would be a whole host of new Federal Government social programs to finish off of what the New Deal and Great Society didn’t accomplish. 

The New-Left then made up of Students For a Democratic Society and Occupy Wall Street today, are not Pacifists in the sense that they are against violence and would never use violence. They just don’t want violence coming from their government, but are more than willing to use it against government or people in society. That represent what they do not like about America, like private corporations.

1968 is basically when the Democratic Party basically became three political parties: New Democrat Liberals, the center-right, (where I am) the FDR Progressives or what’s left of them, and Occupy Wall Street today or the Green Party. That sees the Democratic Party and the Republican Party as the same party, but with different names. 

And even as split as the Democratic Party was back then, they still came within a state or two of winning the 1968 presidential election. But they would’ve done much better without the split happening all in one party.

Chuck Collins: George McGovern 1972- The People's Campaign

Source:Chuck Collins- George McGovern for President, 1972. 

Source:The FreeState MD 

"This is about the truth of it, sadly.  Yet even knowing all that, we re-elected him in a landslide.  What does that say about us?" 

From Chuck Collins

The 1972 Democratic National Convention, was real Amateur Night at the Apollo. Or in this case Amateur Night at the Miami Convention Center. Just because Senator McGovern didn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of winning the 1972 presidential election because of how popular President Nixon was then and with his foreign policy success. Including ending the Vietnam War and opening Russia and China. 

And with the state of the Democratic Party thanks to the emergence of the New-Left in it that became todays Green Party and Occupy Wall Street movement. It was as if what Democrats were saying with George McGovern:“We’re not going to win anyway. So we might as well nominate our heart and go down big, but swinging.”

Just because you probably aren’t going to win an election, it doesn’t mean you have to prove to the wold how unqualified you are to not just govern a huge divided country, but to even win the presidency. And go out-of-your-way to do what you can to make that happen for yourself. And not run the best campaign that you can. Otherwise you might as well not have bothered running for president in the first place. And stay in the Senate and continue be part of the loyal opposition in Congress instead. 

But what happened with the McGovern Campaign is that they never gave themselves much of an opportunity to win this election. And neither did the Democratic Party with the division between the Center-Left and Far-Left in the party.

I have a lot of respect for how George McGovern as far as how he managed his life and career. He truly was a public servant and a people’s politician and always believed in doing what was in the public’s interest. Also as far as what he accomplished politically and moving the Democratic Party from being dependent on racists anti-minority Dixiecrats to win presidential elections. By bringing in ethnic and racial minorities, as well as women and men. And making the Democratic Party very competitive in the North. 

But the McGovern presidential campaign represents what can happen to the Democratic Party when their leadership is weak. And they don’t have a strong Center-Left establishment. And as a result they become divided and their Far-Left takes over. And they nominate George McGovern as their leader in 1972.

Vice President Hubert Humphrey: 1968 Democratic National Convention Acceptance Speech

Source:EFAN- Vice President Humbert H. Humphrey (Democrat, Minnesota) accepting the 1968 Democratic presidential nomination, in Chicago, Illinois.

Source:FreeState MD 

"Here is Vice President Humphrey's acceptance speech from that turbulent and wild convention in August 1968.

He was very much the establishment candidate in '68, and was the favorite through the race after President Johnson quit. He might not have been the most popular choice in  '68 but he did come close to winning, which might have been the closest anyone could have come that year, but it depends on which history expert you ask. Humphrey does seem like a nice guy however." 

From EFAN

Hubert Humphrey, didn’t lose the 1968 presidential election because he was a bad candidate or ran a bad campaign or wasn’t qualified to be President of the United States. The opposites are true and even though as it turns out 1968 was his best shot at being elected President of the United States, something he had been thinking about at least since 1957 after Dwight Eisenhower was reelected President in a landslide, Vice President Humphrey was caught in a perfect political storm for both the Democratic Party because of how much damaged it did to the party that lasted at least until 1976 and came back again in 1980 the same political divisions that reemerged again in the late 1970s.

But it was also a perfect political storm for the Republican Party because it not only brought them back to power with Richard Nixon, but made them a real competitive conservative national party again. Where the Republican Party represented the center-right in the country. And the Democratic Party now representing the center-left in the country. 

1964 and 1968, even though only one of those elections resulted in short-term success and if you count 1966 and that would be two elections for the Republican Party which they won made them a conservative national competitive party, that would fight communism and other authoritarianism. That would promote economic freedom and business and be a fiscally conservative party. These were the positive aspects of the GOP merging with the South.

What these elections did to the Democratic Party, was create chaos for them. Because it meant they could no longer count on the South for votes and to win elections with them. Plus, they had this emerging young more social-democratic, anti-military New-Left, coming into the party. That pushed the Democratic Party to the Far-Left on many national issues through the 1970s and even into the 1980s. Which they didn’t recover from until 1992 when the Democrats nominated Bill Clinton for president and of course he wins that election and Democrats keep control of Congress as well. But what 1968 along with 66 and even 64 did, was realign both the Republican Party and Democratic Party.

CBS News: The Longines Chronoscope- Norman Thomas (1953)

Source:CBS News- Socialist Party Leader Norman Thomas.

Source:FreeState MD 

"LONGINES CHRONOSCOPE WITH DR. NORMAN THOMAS - National Archives and Records Administration 1953-02-16 - ARC Identifier 95979 / Local Identifier LW-LW-48 - TELEVISION INTERVIEW: William Bradford Huie and Hardy Burt talk with Dr. Norman Thomas, Socialist Leader, on criticism of the new Eisenhower administration policies regarding Formosa and Chiang Kai-shek, communism, bombing of Manchurian bases, recognition of the People's Republic of China, Korean truce, a third World War and world peace. Copied by IASL Master Scanner Thomas Gideon." 

From Public Resource

What I respect about Norman Thomas (even though he was a Socialist and we probably agree on almost nothing as it relates to economic policy) is that he was a real Democrat. A real American Democrat, a real Democratic Socialist. 

Norman Thomas was probably against communism as much as any Conservative, or Liberal and spoked out against communism. Which is different from democratic socialism. Democratic socialism, is democratic and communism is authoritarian. At least in how it's been practiced around the world. He wasn’t one of these far-lefties that spoke up in favor of Communists and other authoritarians, who were dictators around the world, for a couple of reasons. One, he was against communism, but also because of how badly socialism has been made to look like.

Thanks to the success of right-wingers, going back at least since the late 1960s in America, socialism has been made to look like communism, as if they are part of the same philosophy, because they are not. And Democratic Socialists like Norman Thomas tend to believe in at least a certain level of capitalism and private enterprise. Just not at the expense of the people and what want as many people as possible to benefit from private enterprise. 

Norman Thomas, was the Bernie Sanders of his time. He and Henry Wallace, another Democratic Socialist, who ran for president for the Progressive Party in 1948, were very similar when it came to economic policy. But Thomas, was perhaps not as much as a dove when it came to foreign affairs and national security.

If you pay attention to this video, you consistently hear Norman Thomas criticize the Soviet Union, totalitarianism and even communism. That the Russian people, were essentially subjects of the Russian Government in the Soviet Union. You didn’t hear him unlike others on the Far-Left in America, try to claim that Russia was misunderstood during the Cold War. Or even try to suggest that America might have been the bad guys in that war of words. Or even the wrong country won that war. 

Thomas, was a Socialist in the European sense. Democratic in nature and even supported capitalism and private enterprise. But wanted a big central government to manage the resources of the country and support the people with a welfare state. So no one would have to go without, or have too much, according to him.

The Daily Beast: ‘Michele Bachmann’s Most Outrageous Comments’

Source:The Daily Beast- former U.S. Representative Michele Bachmann. (Republican, Minnesota) The only public service that Michele Bachmann ever did was not running for reelection. She did Minnesota a big favor there.

Source:FreeState MD

"Never one to shy away from a tendentious (or just blatantly false) statement, the Tea Party Congresswoman has witnessed her fair share of controversy. From virulent anti-gay sentiment to borderline McCarthyism, watch Bachmann's worst."

From The Daily Beast

Some people may think George W. Bush is the Democratic Party’s favorite punching bag. But the fact is President Bush has been out of office for over four years now (thank God) and he’s looking pretty good compared with today’s GOP.

This is a little difficult for me because that’s like coming up with best plays that Larry Bird ever made playing basketball. Or the best passes that Joe Montana ever thrown, or the best home runs that Hank Aron ever hit and so-fourth. Also I don’t live in Representative Bachmann’s House district or state, thank God, otherwise I would’ve moved or been kicked out of there, whatever came first. And I’m not in Congress myself so what I hear about her is from the national media or from blogs. But I can limit it two or three as someone who follows politics closely and has big annoyance when it comes to political hypocrisy and contradiction.

When Representative Bachmann announced for President in the summer of 2011, as I and every other blogger and comedian were celebrating about all the new material that was going to come our way free of charge and at her expense coming from Michele herself, she announced she was in favor of two constitutional amendments. One was to outlaw pornography and the other was to outlaw same- sex marriage both at the federal level. Keep in mind this coming from someone who calls herself a constitutional conservative. Also keep in mind this coming from someone who knows as much about conservatism and the U.S. Constitution as a fish knows about Wall Street.

During Representative Bachmann’s four month presidential campaign she also came out against big government. Well, that makes sense because that’s an issue she knows a lot of about with all of her positions in support of big government. Michele has a habit of bashing things she’s in love with, well, take big government to use as an example. And claiming to love and support things that she says she loves. Take well the U.S. Constitution to use as an example.

What if I were a Republican today, first of all I would ask myself why am I a Republican today and if I could answer that question and I was still a Republican, I would want George W. Bush back leading the party. And prey that he learned something from all of his dumb mistakes as President and didn’t repeat them. Because GWB looks like a God compared with today’s Republican Party and Michele Bachmann represents the intelligence and information gap in the Republican Party. And why they can’t win elections they are supposed to win easily going in.

Public Resource: Longines Chronoscope- Former Progressive Party Presidential Candidate Henry Wallace: From 1952

Source:Public Resource- Progressive Party candidate Henry A. Wallace: on The Longines Chronoscope in 1952.

Source:FreeState MD

"LONGINES CHRONOSCOPE WITH HENRY A. WALLACE - National Archives and Records Administration 1951-12-28 - ARC Identifier 95964 / Local Identifier LW-LW-409 - TELEVISION INTERVIEW: Col. Ansel E. Talbert and William Bradford Huie talk with Wallace, former Vice President of the United States and former Secretary of Agriculture, on critical areas of concern in the world, displaced Arabs in Middle East, economic "peace" assistance, aid federal spending. DVD copied by IASL Master Scanner Katie Filbert."

From Public Resource

Henry Wallace, ran for President in 1948, when the United States essentially had four major presidential contenders: Democratic President Harry Truman, Republican Governor Tom Dewey, Dixiecrat Governor Strom Thurmond and Progressive Henry Wallace. And apparently President Truman a Democrat, even though he advocated what was called the Fair Deal, which was to build on the New Deal from the 1930s, wasn’t left-wing enough for Henry Wallace. So Wallace, ran for the Progressive Party. Henry Wallace was a Social Democrat t, or Democratic Socialist, Social Democrat and I mean small d when it comes to Democrat. Someone who believed in democracy obviously, but a certain type of democracy.

Henry Wallace, believed in democratic socialism or social democracy. Thats common in Europe and wanted to expand on the New Deal and go even further in guaranteeing health insurance and health care. To use as examples, college as well and using the Federal Government heavily, to produce an economy that was as strong and as fair as possible. Investing heavily in public infrastructure, Federal aid to Education, that sort of thing. And combined his economic socialism with social liberalism. Big believer in civil rights and equal rights for all. Way ahead of the Democratic Party in the 1940s and deserves a lot of credit for that.

I think what really separates Henry Wallace from mainstream Progressive Democrats like Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and Hubert Humphrey, has to do with foreign policy and national security. That would be the negative side, where I don’t believe Wallace took the threat of the Soviet Union and communism around the world seriously enough and perhaps even sided with them on some things.

Wallace's positive aspect and I believe the best part of Wallace’s political legacy and what he had in common with Hubert Humphrey and where he separated from Roosevelt and Truman, had to do with civil rights and equal rights. Wallace and Humphrey, supported what became the 1964 Civil Rights Act that was finally passed by Congress and singed into law by President Lyndon Johnson. And Henry Wallace, deserves a lot of credit for that

AlterNet: Valerie Tarico- 'Why Do the Craziest Religious People Get the Most Attention?'

Source:FreeState MD- a woman who is perhaps out of this world.

Source:FreeState MD 

“There’s no question that religion can have some ugly moral and social consequences. The homophobic and misogynist attitudes of many American Evangelicals come straight out their sacred texts. So do the Islamic concepts of “dhimmitude” and jihad. So does the Jewish notion of favored bloodlines. So do Mormon and Scientologist recruiting practices. The Bible prescribes the death penalty for thirty six infractions, ranging from childhood disobedience to marital infidelity to witchcraft. The Quran contains over a hundred verses sanctifying the slaughter of infidels in one context or another. I’ve argued in the past that religion disinhibits violence rather than causing it, but in a world of complex causation, one where straws sometimes break the backs of camels, that may be a distinction without a difference. The fact is, putting God’s name on Iron Age morality contributes to Iron Age behavior.

There also can be no question that, in this regard, not all ideologies are created equal. Religions differ in their history, teaching, and priorities, and consequently in how readily they are leveraged to justify oppression or violence. To name this month’s most salient example, Islam’s death penalty for blasphemy, combined with a prohibition of images, means that some Muslims are uniquely likely to flare when testosterone gets ignited by blasphemous pictures. The Onion made this point recently with a graphic cartoon depicting Jesus, Moses, Ganesh, and Buddha engaged in sex, beneath the caption, “No One Murdered Because of This Image.”  

From the AlterNet 

“In his editorial New Rule, Bill Maher addresses Indiana’s new “religious freedom” law and calls on moderates of all religions to come out against fundamentalism.” 

Source:Real Time With Bill Maher- on religious fundamentalism.

From Real Time With Bill Maher 

Probably the same reason why the craziest Atheists who want to outlaw religion, because they are crazy and don’t understand the U.S. Constitution. If you don’t want to hear about someone, stop talking about them and you’ll hear less.

I like this article in the AlterNet, (perhaps the only article I’ve ever liked by the AlterNet) because Valerie Tarico takes on fundamentalists from all religions. Not just Evangelical Christians, which is what today’s so-called Progressives (the Far-Left really) only focus on:

“Christian-Conservatives, are evil bigots, because they put down women and gays. Conservative-Muslims, are good decent people, who are simply misunderstood. And when they do and say bad things, it’s America’s fault.” Which is generally the attitude that you get from the Far-Left. Which is what the AlterNet is, a clearly left-wing, if not socialist publication on the Far-Left. But with what you get with Valerie Tarico, is religious fundamentalism is bad, even it comes from non-Anglo-Saxon Protestant males.

If religious fundamentalism and bigotry that comes from religious fundamentalism, is a bad thing like gays aren’t real humans, or are mentally handicapped, or women’s place is in the home, etc, then religious fundamentalism is bad period. Doesn’t matter the religion, the race, ethnicity, or color of the people.

If you’re going to put down the Christian-Right when one of their members murders a man simply because he thought that guy was gay, because he had a feminine voice and demeanor, then you can’t defend that same behavior when it happens in Saudi Arabia. Where gays are put to death by their own Islamic government.

The debate about religious extremism shouldn’t be about race, ethnicity, color, or a specific religion. Unless you’re simply bigoted about one race, ethnic, or religious group. To coin a phrase from the great movie about Watergate All The President’s Men: “Follow the money.” Or in this case follow the bigotry. When the Christian-Right behaves badly, sure, go after them. But when Islamists behave badly, don’t call people who criticize that behavior bigots simply for criticizing bad behavior.

Stupid people, unfortunately come in all shapes, sizes, colors, races, ethnicities, religions and genders. Which makes them harder to deal with, because they can hit you at anytime from anyone. No race, ethnicity, religion or gender, has a monopoly on stupidity and bigotry. Which is too bad, because it would be easier to deal with and eliminate:

“Hey, now that we know what all stupid look like, lets just focus on them and put the bigoted morons away.”

You can’t do that with a mental disease like stupidity, simply because we don’t have enough prison and hospital space to house all of those morons. And given these facts when you just concentrate on the bigots from one religion and race of people, while you ignore the bigots from another religion which just happens to be the largest religion in the world, being Islam, you give away get out of jail free cards to a lot of people. Who are just as bigoted as the Christian-Conservatives you don’t like. Which is stupid in itself.